linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/18] writeback: control dirty pause time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1315324285.14232.16.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:51:25 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] writeback: control dirty pause time

On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 09:53 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> plain text document attachment (max-pause-adaption)
> The dirty pause time shall ultimately be controlled by adjusting
> nr_dirtied_pause, since there is relationship
> 
> 	pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit
> 
> Assuming
> 
> 	pages_dirtied ~= nr_dirtied_pause
> 	task_ratelimit ~= dirty_ratelimit
> 
> We get
> 
> 	nr_dirtied_pause ~= dirty_ratelimit * desired_pause
> 
> Here dirty_ratelimit is preferred over task_ratelimit because it's
> more stable.
> 
> It's also important to limit possible large transitional errors:
> 
> - bw is changing quickly
> - pages_dirtied << nr_dirtied_pause on entering dirty exceeded area
> - pages_dirtied >> nr_dirtied_pause on btrfs (to be improved by a
>   separate fix, but still expect non-trivial errors)
> 
> So we end up using the above formula inside clamp_val().
> 
> The best test case for this code is to run 100 "dd bs=4M" tasks on
> btrfs and check its pause time distribution.



> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> ---
>  mm/page-writeback.c |   15 ++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2011-08-29 19:08:43.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c	2011-08-29 19:08:44.000000000 +0800
> @@ -1193,7 +1193,20 @@ pause:
>  	if (!dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded)
>  		bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
>  
> -	current->nr_dirtied_pause = dirty_poll_interval(nr_dirty, dirty_thresh);
> +	if (pause == 0)
> +		current->nr_dirtied_pause =
> +				dirty_poll_interval(nr_dirty, dirty_thresh);
> +	else if (period <= max_pause / 4 &&
> +		 pages_dirtied >= current->nr_dirtied_pause)
> +		current->nr_dirtied_pause = clamp_val(
> +					dirty_ratelimit * (max_pause / 2) / HZ,
> +					pages_dirtied + pages_dirtied / 8,
> +					pages_dirtied * 4);
> +	else if (pause >= max_pause)
> +		current->nr_dirtied_pause = 1 | clamp_val(
> +					dirty_ratelimit * (max_pause * 3/8)/HZ,
> +					pages_dirtied / 4,
> +					pages_dirtied * 7/8);
>  

I very much prefer { } over multi line stmts, even if not strictly
needed.

I'm also not quite sure why pause==0 is a special case, also, do the two
other line segments connect on the transition point?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/